My stance on religion

[Zetta_x]

My view on religion has been misinterpreted. I am not Atheist, I am agnostic.

Where I stand is that the object that first created the universe and reality (whether it was a transcendental being or some kind of miraculous event) is defined as god the ultimate creator.

I don't believe, especially as humans, have the capability to depict the object ... See Moreknown as god. Not only that, but religion today is distorting itself and being manipulated into many different concepts and ideologies. I strongly doubt that the teachings of religion today reflected that of their origins thousands of years ago developing a new brand of whatever religion in question.

I do believe there are many reasons why someone, especially today, would want to use common religions today to some amount of manipulation of its followers for if it was not, there would be no point in belief.

To that extent, I have seen religion have both good effects and bad effects in our world today. Better effects are a strong moral foundations while some of the other bad effects is it derives churches such as the west borough church.

Religion that idolizes the ideology of God make the assumption that God exist, for if God didn't exist, there would be no foundation for said religion. However, as said previously, I have extreme amounts of doubts that religions today are not variations of their respective origins. This can be observed by the many different variations of any single form of ideology today.

Once again, I believe that the first object - the base of the ladder - of our reality is defined as God. If nothing had created reality, then nothing would be god, but that event has the smallest probability because the event of getting something from nothing has yet to be discovered.

Any attempt to define God any further will lead to probabilities of being inaccurate, such attempts can be seen in religions today. This can be seen in two different religions. If both these religions have different views regarding the ideology of God, it is not possible for P and not P to be true thus a contradiction. The decision to decide whether P is true or not P is true cannot be determined for we have no absolute factual knowledge that define God.

I choose this path because while I believe religion offers a strong moral foundation, I think this moral foundation can be flawed in many ways and is very societal influenced. These moral foundations are what the general society agrees to be true rather then proven to be true. For that, it would be impossible to say any one religion has true moral backgrounds.

 

[Urza]

 

[Veho]

My stance on religion:

Live and let live and shut up.

 

[Wabsta]

Sooo, zetta, you've been on /b/ today?
Saw some threads about the difference between atheism and agnostic(ism?).
But, cba to read it, thought it was someone trollin' again.

 

[TrolleyDave]

Philosophy can offer the same amount of moral foundation. The problem I find with religion is that it's a method of control, instead of teaching why you should behave a certain it scares you into behaving that way. You're not actually learning to be moral, you're learning to be afraid not to be. If that makes sense. Of course that doesn't apply to all followers of religion, nor does it apply to all religions. Some people can think for themselves and be religious at the same time. I'm more of a philosophy man myself though.

 

[Zetta_x]

Philosophy can offer the same amount of moral foundation. The problem I find with religion is that it's a method of control, instead of teaching why you should behave a certain it scares you into behaving that way. You're not actually learning to be moral, you're learning to be afraid not to be. If that makes sense. Of course that doesn't apply to all followers of religion, nor does it apply to all religions. Some people can think for themselves and be religious at the same time. I'm more of a philosophy man myself though.

This is one of my biggest pet peeves of religion. Occasionally I will go to a church and listen to a sermon or two. The things I hear are very disturbing including details of hell and heaven, prophecies, and what not. One common ideology of hell is fire and demons and Gbatemp trolls, what I am trying to understand is how can this be true. Perception of anything with the five senses requires methods and the use of a brain. As far as I am concerned, death disables all methods of perception which leads that hell must be in a transcendental realm. Which is semi-consistent with religion itself, except how can we have any information of a transcendental realm and to be proven true?

My branch of philosophy deals with logic, however, I have taken a few general philosophy classes that dealt with religion and famous philosophers and whatnot.


QUOTE(wabsta @ Jul 6 2010, 05:56 PM) Sooo, zetta, you've been on /b/ today?
Saw some threads about the difference between atheism and agnostic(ism?).
But, cba to read it, thought it was someone trollin' again.

Haha, it's something random that just popped up in my head. At my university, we have Christians come and verbally harass us all day for random days of the year. I have Jehovah witnesses harass my family every day of the year. I have my sisters boyfriend try persuading me of religion. They all seem to lack premises that revolve around logic and more of the ideas in their religion itself. The problem with this is that if the ideas of religion aren't proven to be true, such that there can still exist a scenario where the idea is false.

 

[sepinho]

Why are we discussing religion on a website dedicated to Nintendo consoles and the scene? I'm not trolling, I'm just curious.

I know, this is the blog section and there's off-topic boards and all that. But still, isn't this taking the idea of what GBAtemp is a little too far?

 

[Guild McCommunist]

OH GOD NO

Every time these fucking threads pop up we get a bagillion replies, no conclusions, and just a bunch of poppycock of either "RELIGION SUCKS" or "I LOVE RELIGION".

In the end, no one cares.

 

[Zetta_x]

Why are we discussing religion on a website dedicated to Nintendo consoles and the scene? I'm not trolling, I'm just curious.

I know, this is the blog section and there's off-topic boards and all that. But still, isn't this taking the idea of what GBAtemp is a little too far?


Every site usually has a forum that is completely unrelated to the topic itself. Before joining this site, I thought I saw the average GBAtemp user to have some amount of intelligence and less amounts of trolls. As already seen by specific obvious user(s) who shall remain unnamed, I am being contradicted with my assumption that users of GBA temp are a bit more intelligent than other forums. In a logical perspective, topics about religions and favorite kinds of hotdogs all remain on the same level of no correlation to scenes and consoles as long as they do not break any of the rules. Therefore the discussion of religion should be questioned if and only if every thread in the off topic forums must be questioned too (as long as the discussions holds to the forum rules)

My intent of this thread was not to create a religious flamewar, but more of a discussion of religion in general without getting to specific to any one religion.

QUOTE(Guild McCommunist @ Jul 6 2010, 06:27 PM) OH GOD NO

Every time these fucking threads pop up we get a bagillion replies, no conclusions, and just a bunch of poppycock of either "RELIGION SUCKS" or "I LOVE RELIGION".

In the end, no one cares.

Depends on who is using the forums. I do believe an intelligent discussion can be conducted with the GBAtempers hence my creation of this topic. If it is proven wrong, this topic can be locked and I won't post about religion again as I have been proven wrong. Truely, in the end (as time approaches infinite) everyone will be gone and if you need people to care, then no one cares with any topic.

 

[murkurie]

Philosophy can offer the same amount of moral foundation. The problem I find with religion is that it's a method of control, instead of teaching why you should behave a certain it scares you into behaving that way. You're not actually learning to be moral, you're learning to be afraid not to be. If that makes sense. Of course that doesn't apply to all followers of religion, nor does it apply to all religions. Some people can think for themselves and be religious at the same time. I'm more of a philosophy man myself though.

This is one of my biggest pet peeves of religion. Occasionally I will go to a church and listen to a sermon or two. The things I hear are very disturbing including details of hell and heaven, prophecies, and what not. One common ideology of hell is fire and demons and Gbatemp trolls, what I am trying to understand is how can this be true. Perception of anything with the five senses requires methods and the use of a brain. As far as I am concerned, death disables all methods of perception which leads that hell must be in a transcendental realm. Which is semi-consistent with religion itself, except how can we have any information of a transcendental realm and to be proven true?

My branch of philosophy deals with logic, however, I have taken a few general philosophy classes that dealt with religion and famous philosophers and whatnot.


QUOTE(wabsta @ Jul 6 2010, 05:56 PM) Sooo, zetta, you've been on /b/ today?
Saw some threads about the difference between atheism and agnostic(ism?).
But, cba to read it, thought it was someone trollin' again.

Haha, it's something random that just popped up in my head. At my university, we have Christians come and verbally harass us all day for random days of the year. I have Jehovah witnesses harass my family every day of the year. I have my sisters boyfriend try persuading me of religion. They all seem to lack premises that revolve around logic and more of the ideas in their religion itself. The problem with this is that if the ideas of religion aren't proven to be true, such that there can still exist a scenario where the idea is false.

Usually that's all people think hell is, fire. but really a lot of it's going to mental. I guess the easiest to explain it, is your mind in always going to be in a state of torment and agony.

and what those people are doing is wrong, you don't harass someone, you have to let them choose. the people that harass you probably don't understand what they believe themselves.

 

[Cermage]

This is one of my biggest pet peeves of religion. Occasionally I will go to a church and listen to a sermon or two. The things I hear are very disturbing including details of hell and heaven, prophecies, and what not. One common ideology of hell is fire and demons and Gbatemp trolls, what I am trying to understand is how can this be true. Perception of anything with the five senses requires methods and the use of a brain. As far as I am concerned, death disables all methods of perception which leads that hell must be in a transcendental realm. Which is semi-consistent with religion itself, except how can we have any information of a transcendental realm and to be proven true?

My branch of philosophy deals with logic, however, I have taken a few general philosophy classes that dealt with religion and famous philosophers and whatnot.

what connects mind and body, there's too many possibilties and not enough information, for the most part something like a soul is generally accepted, but after death, what happens to the soul? is soul just a bunch of chemicals reacting? is it an entirely different part? whats to say the soul doesnt go somewhere and we retain our memory of being human, thus retaining feeling? whats to say that does happen? until we figure that out (if we ever do), this is one of those topics that will continue endlessly. i don't see much point in debating/discussing it as something like this will always boil down to speculation.

religion is just one way to not bother and actually end up with answers, whether its actually believable to you or not.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

OH GOD NO

Every time these fucking threads pop up we get a bagillion replies, no conclusions, and just a bunch of poppycock of either "RELIGION SUCKS" or "I LOVE RELIGION".

In the end, no one cares.

Depends on who is using the forums. I do believe an intelligent discussion can be conducted with the GBAtempers hence my creation of this topic. If it is proven wrong, this topic can be locked and I won't post about religion again as I have been proven wrong. Truely, in the end (as time approaches infinite) everyone will be gone and if you need people to care, then no one cares with any topic.

Um, no offense, but you're wrong. Every forum ever in existence goes nowhere with these religious debates unless it's a 100% Christian forum and the topic is "I LOVE THE BIBLE HOW ABOUT YOU?" All you need is one guy to go "GOD SUCKS" or "ATHIESTS SUCK" and boom, there goes the powder keg.

It's the common logic of the internet. In the end it's more work for the mods to clean up and regardless of how "intelligent" the people are, it's a worthless debate. It's an issue that's divisive enough that no one will just fold over to other side because they're so ground into their side of the argument. It's like trying to convince a cat that it's a dog.

 

[yuyuyup]

god is trash

 

[TrolleyDave]

This is one of my biggest pet peeves of religion. Occasionally I will go to a church and listen to a sermon or two. The things I hear are very disturbing including details of hell and heaven, prophecies, and what not. One common ideology of hell is fire and demons and Gbatemp trolls, what I am trying to understand is how can this be true. Perception of anything with the five senses requires methods and the use of a brain. As far as I am concerned, death disables all methods of perception which leads that hell must be in a transcendental realm. Which is semi-consistent with religion itself, except how can we have any information of a transcendental realm and to be proven true?

My branch of philosophy deals with logic, however, I have taken a few general philosophy classes that dealt with religion and famous philosophers and whatnot.

The vision of hell and heaven varies from religion to religion. Some religions don't actually believe in a heaven or hell as well. If I remember right it was actually Islam that introduced the now common perception of hell being made up of a fire that you burn in eternally. Even though it's an offshoot or extension of Judaic religions like Judaism and Christianity it still differs slightly. For some people religion is their life because it fills a necessity, a need to know that there's something better. For alot of people though they associate with the promotion of good morals, good behaviour, loving people and that kind of thing. That's also one of the problems when having a discussion about religion, the followers are very diverse. While one may believe and behave a certain way it doesn't mean they all do. I usually see it as this, there's religious followers who follow the message and there's religious followers who follow the words. People who follow the message are very different than the people who follow the words. I honestly have very little problems with followers of most religions as for them it's a personal thing. Even though I disagree with it I'd still fight for the rights of anyone to practice it, as long as fits within the bounds of a secular society of course. It's when religion becomes political that I have a problem with it.

I totally understand where you're coming from concerning the lack of evidence, but that's where the faith element comes in. Faith in general is a good thing because faith can lead to learning hope and trust. If someone needs religion to learn those things then it's all good as far as I'm concerned because it's teaching those very positive emotions. I'd rather see someone full of faith and hope than mistrust and despair. The world is way too full of people with no trust and despair. Of course my faith and hope is a little different than say a Christians or a Muslims, but I'm a firm believer in the powerful of both those emotions. Logic is of course where most people should be thinking, but logic can also be a dangerous thing because it doesn't teach people to dream and reach out for the illogical. And sometimes the illogical can advance society.

 

[_Chaz_]

My stance on religion:

Live and let live and shut up.

x2

 

[Magmorph]

The vision of hell and heaven varies from religion to religion. Some religions don't actually believe in a heaven or hell as well. If I remember right it was actually Islam that introduced the now common perception of hell being made up of a fire that you burn in eternally. Even though it's an offshoot or extension of Judaic religions like Judaism and Christianity it still differs slightly. For some people religion is their life because it fills a necessity, a need to know that there's something better. For alot of people though they associate with the promotion of good morals, good behaviour, loving people and that kind of thing. That's also one of the problems when having a discussion about religion, the followers are very diverse. While one may believe and behave a certain way it doesn't mean they all do. I usually see it as this, there's religious followers who follow the message and there's religious followers who follow the words. People who follow the message are very different than the people who follow the words. I honestly have very little problems with followers of most religions as for them it's a personal thing. Even though I disagree with it I'd still fight for the rights of anyone to practice it, as long as fits within the bounds of a secular society of course. It's when religion becomes political that I have a problem with it.

Can you explain the difference between the message and the words?

 

[TrolleyDave]

Can you explain the difference between the message and the words?

Yeah no probs! Of course this doesn't apply to all religions obviously but more of a generalisation to keep it shorter. Most religions teach compassion, love, caring, unity, sharing and that kind of thing. That's the message that's put forward. Most religions teach that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong etc. However, the words are written by men. The words themselves teach a particular persons interpretation of the message. Usually those men had a goal and their interpretation reflects in the words they use to put that message across. Take homosexuality for example. Religions, especially Judaic based ones, say that homosexuality is a sin and that they should be put to death. That's not part of the message of compassion, caring, acceptance etc, that's the word of a man who had a problem with homosexuality. Does that make sense?

 

[Zetta_x]

Usually that's all people think hell is, fire. but really a lot of it's going to mental. I guess the easiest to explain it, is your mind in always going to be in a state of torment and agony.

and what those people are doing is wrong, you don't harass someone, you have to let them choose. the people that harass you probably don't understand what they believe themselves.

Exactly which leads me to my next point: everyone has different ideas of what torment and agony is. A specific place in a transcendental realm does not seem possible. If there is only one Satan and hell, people won't be sent to the same place. Wouldn't the place with Satan be worse then a place without Satan, then how can someone's hell be more hell like then others? The way certain religions use hell seems like more of a control then rather a type of explanation which seems like the idea that would come from a human rather than a transcendental being.

Another thing I see in people with religious views is that they have some reason to believe in their religion vs just going with faith. For example, if there was no such thing as an afterlife, how many religions today would be affected and how many followers would still believe in the religion? The belief of an afterlife draws in many people into the crowd of a specific religion which seems like something humanistic to do.

what connects mind and body, there's too many possibilties and not enough information, for the most part something like a soul is generally accepted, but after death, what happens to the soul? is soul just a bunch of chemicals reacting? is it an entirely different part? whats to say the soul doesnt go somewhere and we retain our memory of being human, thus retaining feeling? whats to say that doesnt happen? until we figure that out (if we ever do), this is one of those topics that will continue endlessly. i don't see much point in debating/discussing it as something like this will always boil down to speculation.

religion is just one way to not bother and actually end up with answers, whether its actually believable to you or not.

The whole soul concept has not been proven or disproven so, as you would most likely agree, a discussion of that will always boil down to speculation. This thread is more trying to state the facts for example, there is a god or there is not a god under a specific definition of god. While an obvious one, it would be logically contradicting if there was a god and there was no god. Logic can be used at a very basic level to identify key points of religions sometimes showing inconsistencies in a specific religion thus implying that it could not have been formed by a perfect being or God. The only alternative would have to be something humanistic or something that is not perfect. Maybe aliens =P

Um, no offense, but you're wrong. Every forum ever in existence goes nowhere with these religious debates unless it's a 100% Christian forum and the topic is "I LOVE THE BIBLE HOW ABOUT YOU?" All you need is one guy to go "GOD SUCKS" or "ATHIESTS SUCK" and boom, there goes the powder keg.

It's the common logic of the internet. In the end it's more work for the mods to clean up and regardless of how "intelligent" the people are, it's a worthless debate. It's an issue that's divisive enough that no one will just fold over to other side because they're so ground into their side of the argument. It's like trying to convince a cat that it's a dog.


Like I said before, you can treat those kinds of posts like advertisements. Just ignore them and the discussion won't revolve around those kinds of things. There exists a possibility of a discussion without annoying people. This can be seen of what has been discussed so far without too many annoyances. In any case, the contribution of discussion from other tempers has been more then respectful and not a worthless debate.

If you feel that this thread is going to get locked, then don't keep posting it as it has nothing to relate to the discussion itself. Instead, let the course take its path and get locked and allow it to live while it can.

The vision of hell and heaven varies from religion to religion. Some religions don't actually believe in a heaven or hell as well. If I remember right it was actually Islam that introduced the now common perception of hell being made up of a fire that you burn in eternally. Even though it's an offshoot or extension of Judaic religions like Judaism and Christianity it still differs slightly. For some people religion is their life because it fills a necessity, a need to know that there's something better. For alot of people though they associate with the promotion of good morals, good behaviour, loving people and that kind of thing. That's also one of the problems when having a discussion about religion, the followers are very diverse. While one may believe and behave a certain way it doesn't mean they all do. I usually see it as this, there's religious followers who follow the message and there's religious followers who follow the words. People who follow the message are very different than the people who follow the words. I honestly have very little problems with followers of most religions as for them it's a personal thing. Even though I disagree with it I'd still fight for the rights of anyone to practice it, as long as fits within the bounds of a secular society of course. It's when religion becomes political that I have a problem with it.
Can you explain the difference between the message and the words?


QUOTE(TrolleyDave @ Jul 6 2010, 07:07 PM)

QUOTE(Magmorph @ Jul 6 2010, 06:59 PM)

Can you explain the difference between the message and the words?

Yeah no probs! Of course this doesn't apply to all religions obviously but more of a generalisation to keep it shorter. Most religions teach compassion, love, caring, unity, sharing and that kind of thing. That's the message that's put forward. Most religions teach that murder is wrong, stealing is wrong etc. However, the words are written by men. The words themselves teach a particular persons interpretation of the message. Usually those men had a goal and their interpretation reflects in the words they use to put that message across. Take homosexuality for example. Religions, especially Judaic based ones, say that homosexuality is a sin and that they should be put to death. That's not part of the message of compassion, caring, acceptance etc, that's the word of a man who had a problem with homosexuality. Does that make sense?

I think this sums up my thoughts of religion. I feel many churches (where church is defined as a place to discuss religion) today rely on 'words' rather than the 'message.' It's extremely rare (although I have met a few) when a person knows the actual 'message' of a religion. The amount of churches that heavily emphasize the words rather then the message is a very big motivation to not bother with a specific religion.

Unfortunately, I lack all motivation for Faith in respect to religion. I have tried several times, I was even raised as a Christian for the last 75% of the years of my life. I sense an extreme amount of distrust in credibility from the Christian religious leaders I have encountered especially when they make statements such as everything about genetics is wrong, evolution cannot possibly exist, and other radical statements such as a homosexuality is wrong (I am heterosexual, there just seems to be logical inconsistencies with that kind of stuff).

Generally, I do have some faith, but it's got to be something trustworthy and most religions today have lost that title. For example, I have faith in rev 20 is going to be a good CIOS. While I have no details of what to expect, I still make an accusation of it to be a good CIOS. I have not disproved it or proved it, so its more rather an opinion based on bias feelings

It seems that faith is tied into the concept of opinions. Trustworthy is a heavy topic especially since being trustworthy means that an unpredicted action is something you can trust. Unpredicted being defined as a future action and what not. All of this is for a different topic though and I didn't want to steer too far away from the original intent of religions.


---

Edit: Ewww, maybe this post can be merged. I thought someone had posted after my last post.

 

[Magmorph]

I think this sums up my thoughts of religion. I feel many churches (where church is defined as a place to discuss religion) today rely on 'words' rather than the 'message.' It's extremely rare (although I have met a few) when a person knows the actual 'message' of a religion. The amount of churches that heavily emphasize the words rather then the message is a very big motivation to not bother with a specific religion.

Unfortunately, I lack all motivation for Faith in respect to religion. I have tried several times, I was even raised as a Christian for the last 75% of the years of my life. I sense an extreme amount of distrust in credibility from the Christian religious leaders I have encountered especially when they make statements such as everything about genetics is wrong, evolution cannot possibly exist, and other radical statements such as a homosexuality is wrong (I am heterosexual, there just seems to be logical inconsistencies with that kind of stuff).

Generally, I do have some faith, but it's got to be something trustworthy and most religions today have lost that title. For example, I have faith in rev 20 is going to be a good CIOS. While I have no details of what to expect, I still make an accusation of it to be a good CIOS. I have not disproved it or proved it, so its more rather an opinion based on bias feelings

It seems that faith is tied into the concept of opinions. Trustworthy is a heavy topic especially since being trustworthy means that an unpredicted action is something you can trust. Unpredicted being defined as a future action and what not. All of this is for a different topic though and I didn't want to steer too far away from the original intent of religions.

The people who are following the 'message' are still promoting their holy book full of the 'words' by being part of that particular religion. It seems to me that the 'message' and 'words' can, and should, exist independently of one another. Why do people need to be promoting a holy book which is often contradictory to the message of understanding, unity and love? A message of love and understanding should not need a book full of hate and persecution.

 

[berlinka]

Too much has been discussed about religion. I think a lot of it. But I won't say it. It exhausts me. Where to begin??? The only thing I can say to people is "use your common sense".